₦airaland Forum

You don't have to lie that you were an atheist and try to give a FALSE idea of what atheism is to make your points. . .

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Now there is something that comes with atheism which is the sense of liberation from any moral obligations placed on you by your religion. For instance if your religion forbids drinking alcohol and you denounce it, suddenly there is no reason not to drink alcohol.[/quote]False, I personally do not drink alcohol because I consider drinking and getting drunk as something that is foolish. . .

The same goes for every moral obligation and all the things you previously wouldn't do because you were afraid of what God will do to you if you did. Since you are no longer "scared of God" anymore, you find yourself defining what is right and wrong for yourself. For instance you might begin to ask questions like "what is really wrong with lying anyway?" or "what is really wrong with adultery?" and so on and so forth. Eventually, you find out that you are having to justify your actions based on you and yourself alone.

You said you were an atheist and thought this way right?. . .So tell me how many people did you kill when you became an atheist?. . .How many girls did you rapeeee? how many times did you meet your neighbours wife and asked her our?. . .How many people did you defraud?. . .How many cars did you steal? how many shops did you rob? how many time s did you beat up your mum? how many married women did you sleep with because you stop fearing god and believed every thing was based on your self alone. . .Pls tell me how many people did you kill and how much drugs did you do because you believed your actions are based on you and yourself alone. . .

The next thing that follows is that you begin to observe other people and you find out (or so it seemed to me at the time) that they too are more or less doing the same thing including (and especially) the religious ones who to me only used God as a means of justifying their actions to themselves. The hypocrisy of so-called Christians did not help matters either and was further proof to me that people only adopted a moral cloak when it suited them or when they wanted you to do something but readily threw their moral values out of the window when they were pushed to the wall or when they just wanted to have fun. As far as I was concerned, moral values were just a thing of convenience. For instance we might say it is wrong to kill another human being but if there was a famine, we would happily go hunting humans to kill and eat.

How many atheist societies do this?. . .I live in Denmark, and I am yet to interact with a young Danish adult between the ages of 21-25 that believes in god, I am very serious, I am yet to see, I am not saying they don't exist but I am yet to interact with one. .But they do not think that moral values are a thing of convenience as you are trying to paint it. . .If all atheist all believe that moral values are a thing of convenience as you claim. . then why is there less crime and murder in Denmark(highly atheistic) compared to Nigeria which is the second most religious nation on earth?. . .

As far as I was concerned, there was no God, no spirits, no souls, nothing but organized atoms trying to survive and enjoy life. For me, anything you did to survive was justified and if for some reason I did not survive or someone else killed me to survive then that's just too bad. I did not owe anyone anything and no one owed me anything.

Again, how many people did you kill when you were an atheist and reasoned like this?. . .How many times did you beat up your mum?. . .How many times did you cheat your friends, how many shooting sprees were you involved in?. . .Since no one owned you, how many times did you enter your neighbours house and rapeeeee his kids?. . .

I was alive to stay alive as much as possible and to enjoy it as much as I could and everyone else should do the same with their lives. If being nice helped me get what I want, I would be nice, if being nasty served my purposes better, then I would be nasty. I actually once argued during the time after 9/11 when the Americans were hunting Osama bin Laden that what Osama did wasn't necessarily evil and assuming the Arabs had prevailed, 50-100 years from now we would be singing his praises as our hero who saved the world from the evil oppressors of the West. My argument was that it is the person that wins the war that writes history and forms thought and that our thoughts were also formed by those who won previous wars. No ideology was necessarily better than the other, what matters is who won the war and who gets to educate the next generation.
Now the problem with this was that this was not how I acted. I remember when I fell in love with my first girlfriend, I couldn't explain why I just wanted to do things for her even when it inconvenienced me greatly. If it was true that all we lived for was personal survival, then why should I sacrifice for someone else and actually enjoy it and even want to sacrifice more.

You just keep begging the question in a very dishonest way. . . Firstly, lack of belief in god which is what atheism is does NOT say we live ONLY for personal survival. . .if the nonsense you are trying to imply is true then why is it that some atheist have shown more love and sacrifice to others more than religious some people? No evidence what so ever to show that atheist are more evil or that christians show more love to others than atheist. . .This fact shows that you are asking the wrong question. . .Some christians through their behaviour see life as a personal survival same with some atheist, to claim that atheism means life is a personal survival is to tell lies. . .

I'll give you an instance; Incidentally, the girl I was dating was a pastor's daughter and I found her "christianity" amusing so I took a liking to her. She was a virgin and believed she should stay celibate until marriage. Obviously I didn't share such beliefs and I knew I could easily manipulate her into sleeping with me (and if I had tempted her properly, she would have happily fallen) but for some strange reason I didn't want to. I wanted to respect her wishes and let her come around in her own time and this bothered me because here I was depriving myself of pleasure in order to respect someone else who was depriving herself of pleasure because of beliefs that I don't respect. Indirectly I was acknowledging the same God I claimed didn't exist. Anyway, as the relationship went on, things went south and we eventually broke up I[b] concluded that love was madness anyway[/b] and promptly went back to bashing Christians in Christian fellowships. One method I liked to use (and still love to use) in argument was the Socratic method i.e. I would seat back and ask question after question until the fellowship leader usually contradicted his/herself. Sound familiar?

Since love was madness as you thought, how many whoressss did you go about sleeping with?. . .How many girls did you rappppeeee because you believed love was madness. . .How many times did you rapeeee your sister to satisfy your sexual urge because you believed life was all about survival and you were not responsible for anything and not answerable to any body?. . .

[quote author=Mr_Anony]My Answer: Yes animals have souls (Eccl 3:21). I don't think it goes all the way down to unicellular organisms.[/quote]Why not unicellular organism, they are also alive and posses all the living characteristics of animals. . .So mosquitoes, rats, butterflies, goats, termites, pigs. . .etc all have souls?. . .

My question: How do you explain self-awareness?

Self awareness is a function of the brain. . .

Explanation of my question: You have claimed as fact that thoughts are merely physical chemical reactions in a brain (though you haven't backed up this fact). How do these "chemicals" know that you are yourself and distinct from someone else?

Thoughts are indeed a chain of chemical reaction in the brain it has been shown scientifically, There is a set of chain reactions that take place in your brain when you think about something. . .If your brain malfunctions and the reactions can't take place you won't be able to think at all. . .That is why brain injuries result in the inability to think. . . .Self awareness is a function of the brain. It is the brain that makes you self aware and without it you won't be self aware. . .

[quote author=debosky]

People may disagree on issues of lesser significance, but they agree on the central tenets - that is the crux of my argument. You claim people simply 'self-project themselves as god' and 'tell you whatever they want to tell you' - this is patently false for the following reason - listen carefully: if there are central tenets that are agreed on by everyone then the argument of 'self-projection' is futile as if everyone agrees on these tenets then they are UNIVERSAL and thus it cannot be regarded as 'self projection'

The crux of my arguments is NOT about central tenets because if central tenets is all that matters there won't be MAJOR divisions and disagreements. People simply self project themselves as god when they read the bible and that is what is responsible for the major differences, they are NOT of lesser significance since they lead to breakaways and divisions. Self projection is what causes these MAJOR divisions despite the central tenets. The crux of my point is that people read the bible and self project there by giving you what ever interpretation and opinion that they want. I gave you an example with Oladegbuu who ties his salvation to his self projected belief that the earth and the universe is less than 10,000 years old. . .It is a MAJOR issue not a minor one, saying it isn't is simply lying. . .

ALL Christians regard Jesus as the Son of God - that is not self projection. That there are minor differences elsewhere cannot change this central tenet, and my atheist friend, it is is by no means bogus.

Self projection is when some people read the bible and conclude that Jesus is ONLY the son of god while others read the bible and also conclude that Jesus is god and god's son at the same time. . .That is the crux of my arguments. . .Despite your central tenets people still hold VERY different beliefs on who Jesus is. . .To claim it is NOT a MAJOR issue is to tell lies, a look at the world of christianity says other wise since christians label each other as heretics over such beliefs. . .Self projection is what is responsible for all these, since all christians read the same gospels and epistles in the new testament. . .

I can answer this question separately if you wish - however, for the purpose of establishing the existence of a central tenet, you have the answer right here - ALL Christians regard salvation through Jesus as the way to be saved. Simple.

I said what is the central and acceptable universal doctrine on[b] HOW to achieve salvation through Jesus?[/b]. . .Christians read the bible and self project with various answers to that. . .The question already acknowledge that Jesus is the one that saves, so how does one achieve it through Jesus, when christians read the bible, their answers all depend on self projection. . .

You are logically challenged I must admit. Son of God is the universal principle/tenet - anything else is additional. Jesus was revealed, first and foremost as the Son of God. Anything else is secondary. That there are differences in secondary beliefs does not imply the absence of primary, enduring and universal beliefs.

If the tenets you are talking about is all that matter then there won't be breakaways and endless divisions. . .Some people read the bible and self project that Jesus is ONLY the son of god, others read the same bible and also self project that Jesus is god and god at the same time. . .That is the point I am making, those that read the bible all self project when it comes to almost everything. . .If they don't there won't be all these major disagreements. . .Why do christians condemn to hell those that disagree with them if it is NOT a major issue?. . .

Self-projection is a pile of bovine excrement - people do not 'self-project' that Jesus is the Son of God, all Christians the latter as a fact, which is what makes it a central belief/tenet/principle. That people hold opinions on lesser issues cannot change the fundamental principles.

Daft, when people read the bible some self project that Jesus is god alone while others self project that he is god and god's son at the same time, despite reading the same bible. . .That is the crux of my argument. . .To say other wise is to tell lies. . .They are NOT lesser issues, if they were lesser issues they will not lead to breakaways and endless divisions. . .People castigate each other and call each other heretics for holding conflicting views. . .Stop lying that it is a minor issue, the CENTRAL point of my argument remains that christians ALWAYS self project and come up with different opinions and interpretations. . .When it comes to tithing people self project, when it comes to how and when the earth was created people self project, when it comes on how to achieve salvation through Jesus people self project, when it comes to the issue of hell, people self project, how to live the christian life etc. . .I The issue of central tenets does not help here since despite the central tenets people still self project all the time. . .

This daft theory of self-projection can be explained thus:

Frosbel: That girl is 6' 2" tall.

Debosky: No, that girl is 5' 10" tall.

mazaje: You see! You don't agree!! It's all in your imagination!

Frosbel & Debosky: But we agree she is a girl don't we?

mazaje: Erm, erm, erm. . . . .no!!! you are self-projecting and saying whatever you want!!

Frosbel & Debosky: She is a girl - look yourself. We don't agree on her exact height, but that's just a perspective difference.

mazaje: Noooo!!! self-projecting!!! It's driving me nuts!!!!

Frosbel & Debosky: Both walk away from deranged boy.

This analogy is very daft and does not represent the TRUE christian self projection AT ALL. . .

Let me give you a better analogy. . .

[quote]Frosbel: The girl is 6' 2" tall and lives in lagos.

Debosky: No you are a liar and deserve to be in prison for your lies, that girl is 5' 10" tall and lives in kano.

mazaje: Which girl are you guys talking about?. . .

Frosbel & Debosky: The girl in this story book read it for your self. . .

mazaje: The story here says she is 6'2" in some pages and 5'10", in some places, it says she lives in kano while in others it says she lives in lagos. am very confused.

Frosbel: I agree she is a girl - read the book yourself. The book says she lives only in lagos and is 6'2". . .

Debosky: I also agree she is a girl but the book clearly states that she only lives in kano and is 5'10", frosbel needs to be put in prison for lying. .

mazaje: Noooo!!! why are both of you self-projecting!!! It's driving me nuts!!!!

Frosbel: We are not self projecting, the author of the book told me himself that she lives only in lagos and confirmed the hight I am telling you

Debosky: He is lying, the author of the book actually called me and told me that she lives only in kano and is 5'10". . .Frosbel deserves to be in prison for lying against the author. .

mazaje: What the hell. . .Walks away from the deranged self projecting lunatics. . .

christemmbassey: @ Bidam, you try o, i mean to discus bible(spiritual thngs) with this canal men. You know i tried to join the thread but when i look @ thier posts i felt like u are trying to explain sound and music to a deaf and dump. Brother- a canal man can not understand the things of the spirit, because they are spiritualy decerned. You try sha.

Lying is now a thing of the spirit abi?. . .LOL!

Bidam: ok...atleast you agree the sphere is a form of a circle.bro..no be me talk am na,na bible..look at job 26:7.scientist keep on making discoveries, discarding and reviewing theories @ the emboldened..lets wait and see whether they are right or the bible is right time will tell.

No time can tell you what remains an impossibility. . .The stars are distant suns and some of them are even bigger than our sun which is like a million times bigger than the earth. . .Even our sun can not fall into the earth talk more of the other stars. . .

whether jews or christians is irrelevant..you already agreed from the beginning that the bible contains timeless truth and principles. satan is a spirit whether you agree to or not..it is a fact(act5:3)

When did I agree that the bible contains timeless truths and principles?. . .Telling lies is your forte right?. . .You are yet to tell me one scientist that says the bible is the book of all books when it comes to science. . .

like i said he doesn't need to say it..since he believes the bible as a manual for life that goes to show the BOOK HE CHERISHES MOST.

You earlier on said that scientist have said the the bible is the book of all books, am still waiting for you top show me just one of them. . .

[quote author=Mr_Anony]@bolded......But then wouldn't the same true if your consciousness was somehow extracted from you and inserted into a computerized robot such that you used it's processor and hard-drive to process and relay information? You would also only be able to control your thoughts as long as the electrical hardware was stable. Any defect on the robot apparatus would hamper your thinking but does that mean that your consciousness therefore has suffered defect? No, not at all.[/quote]What is this abstract example all about. . .I don't get it. . .

Your argument is a bit like saying that if you scratch a CD, the information on it suffers. While this might appear to be true, it really isn't. The CD has suffered damage therefore we cannot access the information but this doesn't mean that the information itself is defective in much the same way that tearing a novel does not destroy the story written in it. Notice the parallels I am drawing? I am trying to show you that the apparatus is very different from the person.

The information are stored in bytes and bits inside the CD and can be destroyed when scratched.

Let me give you another example that I hope is a bit more realistic since you talked about drugs. If you have ever been intoxicated or known someone who has, I believe you'll agree with me that you are still quite conscious of yourself but your thinking is somehow hampered i.e. For lack of a better way to put it: "You somehow know what you want to think but somehow you can't think it."

It depends on the drugs in question. . .there are some drugs that can make you lose your senses completely and make you do only what the drug whats you to do. . .There are drugs that can give you near death experience regardless, sensations that you can not control on your own but are as a result of the drugs. . .

The point I am making is that your brain is not you but is a tool you use to access the world. Your brain does not make sense of information by itself. in fact your brain cannot tell the difference between a memory and a current happening event. The same part of your brain will light up if you were looking at a cup and if you are imagining the same cup with your eyes closed. The brain does not have an intelligence of it's own, you do. The question is who are you? Is your brain you?

Really, so the brain can not make sense of information?. . .What do you use to make sense of an information if not the brain? Why is it that without a brain you can not make sense of any information. . .The same part of your brain lights up when you are looking at a cup and when you are thinking about because of the stored memory.

Anyway, that's by the way. For now please answer my question 4: How do you explain human subjective consciousness?

I said I don't know but I believe the brain is responsible for it. . .

davidylan: I am squarely of the opinion that there is a non-physical portion of the human that is responsible for triggering thought. Your brain chemistry only serves as the messenger to shaping those thoughts.

So this non physical portion of the body is affected by physical things like drugs and oxygen starvation, and injury to the physical brain, eh?. . .Your mental state is inextricably related to the physical state of your brain. . . .No brain nothing. . .

davidylan: Huh? The brain is responsible for subjective reality? Please understand what subjective reality is first before you answer the question.

I notice that anytime atheists get stuck, they revert to the "we need to get a deeper understanding" tactic. Excellent get out of jail card.

How on earth did you accept as "fact" that the brain is responsible for thought when we do not have a "deeper understanding" just yet? Amazing.

I said you can ONLY control your thoughts when your brain is in a stable condition. You can not completely control your thoughts if you are under some drugs (your brain is disturbed), or when you suffer brain injury are you saying that some material drug affects the immaterial part of the body that is responsible for thoughts?. . .You can even lose your ability to think completely with a brain injury. . .Because of that I am of the opinion that the brain is responsible for it all. . .I am NOT stuck any where, I am only responding to you based on knowledge that is known. . .The theist keeps making things up and pretending to know things he DOES NOT and can NEVER know and this is pure DISHONESTY. I am never shy to say I do not know. . Because its true I do not know instead of making things up, like souls etc that have NEVER been shown to exist any where but a creation of primitive men that thought people reason with their hearts(go read your bible it is full of people reasoning with their hearts). . .Of course we need deeper understanding because that is the FACT. . . As time goes we gain more knowledge. . .Our understanding of how the brain functions in 50 years to come will be very different from now, there MUST be an improvement. . .The studies that have been carried out so far have shown that the brain is responsible for thought, but the entire brain and its function has not yet been understood completely, do you deny that FACT?. . .

davidylan: I'm not sure talking about plants here is helpful.

We already have a deep understanding of brain chemistry... in actual fact, the deeper we know the more we realize there is more than meets the eye. I note you have consistently skipped a question Anony has been asking for a while which i also asked a while back - what is responsible for subjective reality?

What else apart from the brain?. . .We do NOT have a complete understanding about brain chemistry. . .Our understanding of it is deep but far from what we will want to know. . .

davidylan: Actually it is not as straight-forward since finger prints are a physical quality that you do not control... YOU can control your own thoughts... how do you do it? Simply by upping your dopamine levels?

If i may throw this in - what is responsible for subjective reality?

You can ONLY control your own thoughts when you brain is in stable a condition. . .You can not completely control your thoughts if you are under some drugs (your brain is disturbed), or when you suffer brain injury. . .You can even lose your ability to think completely with a brain injury. . .Because of that I am of the opinion that the brain is responsible for it all. . .

davidylan: Now we are getting somewhere... i think everyone here agrees with you that chemical reactions in the brain are responsible for the thought process. Just the same way your leg is responsible for forward or backward movement... but is your leg solely responsible for getting you from point A to B? Is your leg not merely a vehicle to accomplish a conscious choice made by your brain that your leg had absolutely no part in determining? Did your leg unilaterally decide to travel to Lagos on its own without your own input?

I am squarely of the opinion that there is a non-physical portion of the human that is responsible for triggering thought. Your brain chemistry only serves as the messenger to shaping those thoughts.

Non physical?. . .In was of the opinion that there is a portion of the human that is responsible for thought and reason before but not any more. Personally I believe it all lies in the brain. . .For Plants have a rudimentary nervous system this is what allows them to respond to external stimuli they do not have a brain to attach meaning to their responses. Perhaps a deeper understanding of brain chemistry will provide the answers. . .

davidylan: Lets not get ridiculous here. Scientific theory states that for a purely physical/chemical process... as long as ALL conditions remain the same, you are likely to end up with the exact same result. Our brains reaction to the same physical stimuli is almost always identical... EXCEPT in the case of thought patterns. Why?

and this is because?

For example - every heart will react the exact same way to adrenaline... why do thought patterns differ for every individual to the exact same shot of serotonin?

This is just like asking me why do all human beings have different finger prints. . .I said I don't know. . .I will ask some professionals when I get to school a later and see if they can give me an answer. . .For now I don't know. . .

davidylan: You obviously do not know this but somehow you keep mislabeling it as a "fact". Based on what empirical evidence?

I asked a very simple question... if you believe that thoughts are purely a result of complex chemical reactions in the brain then how is it impossible to engineer a specific thought pattern by making up a complex mix of brain chemicals in the lab?

That should be a very simple question that should help us validate your "fact" no?

You are misconstruing several issues here to pass across an invalid opinion. the brain is the master-switch (see it as the thought-processing center) and it does this by the manipulation of a complex chemical reaction. But are these chemical reactions themselves SOLELY responsible for thought? the answer is an obvious NO to those who are truly objective seekers of the truth. If the answer were yes (as you falsely claim) then why is it not possible to simply inject everyone with a specific concoction of chemicals to induce the exact same train of thought? Why do identical twins (with identical brain chemistry) grow to be fully independent humans with the ability to process information independent of each other? Why do drugs that alter brain chemistry produce vastly different reactions in different individuals?

I saw an analogy by greatgenius that perfectly explains this conundrum. Without the filament in a bulb there is no electricity... but is the filament the sole reason a bulb lights up?

You are the one that is getting it wrongly, I agree with a lot of what you have written, but there are some misconception on your part as well. My position is thoughts happen as a result of complex chemical reactions that occur in the brain. . .I never said the chemical reactions are what trigger thought, but they are responsible for the process. . .Just to ask, what do you believe triggers thoughts and reasoning?. . .

[quote author=Mr_Anony]The answer I gave you is very clear. Since the soul is non-physical, it becomes irrelevant to ask for a mechanism explaining how it leaves the body. It is a bit like asking how non-physical information 'flies out' of a physical disk when it is deleted.[/quote]So bits and bytes are non physical things?. . .When the bits are deleted they get removes from where they are stored. . .

As I said earlier, we will treat this when we get to question 9.

OK. . .

But the part in bold is precisely what you have done.

Let me remind you of what you said earlier


Here you said that your thoughts are merely chemical reactions. . .and a while later you said man is more or less his brain i.e. his thoughts, reasoning, will and emotions are chemical reactions

Even though we ignore how absurd it sounds coming from your worldview that the measurable physical can create the immeasurable non-physical, it sounds even more absurd to me that two brains receiving the same input should not have the same chemical reactions and therefore end up with the same thought. That is very unscientific.

Which scientific theory says that two brains receiving the same input must react the same way?. . .Which scientific theory tells you that two brains must end up with the same thought after receiving the same stimuli?. . .

Exactly. Why?

Because different brains react differently. . .

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I think he is asking exactly what I am asking[/quote]Do you deny the fact that thoughts are a series of complex chemical reactions in the brain?

davidylan: very simple... you said (paraphrasing here) that thoughts are purely a result of chemical reactions in the brain. Since it is possible to actually create dopamine in the lab or serotonin... is it possible to create a specific thought pattern by injecting a specific concoction of neurotransmitters into the brain?

Do you deny the fact that thoughts are as a results of complex chemical reactions in the brain?. . .I said I don't know but the fact I know is that thoughts are a complex chemical reactions in the brain, do you deny that fact?

sphere/globe/circle atleast i showed you relevant translation of scriptural translation where it was mentioned as a globe or circle in isaiah. is sphere not circular in shape? funny you keep on replying my post even though you never wanted to.have u also considered the book of job26:7 the Bible simply stated (in about the year 1473 B.C.E.): "[God is] hanging the earth upon nothing." (Job 26:7) In the original Hebrew, the word for "nothing" used here means "not any thing," and this is the only time it occurs in the Bible. The picture it presents of an earth surrounded by empty space is recognized by scholars as a remarkable vision for its time. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament says: "Job 26:7 strikingly pictures the then-known world as suspended in space, thereby anticipating future scientific discovery."
!The Bible's accurate statement predated Aristotle by over 1,100 years. Yet, Aristotle's views continued to be taught as fact for some 2,000 years after his death

A circle is NOT a sphere, new and revisionist translation choose to revise the original word to make it agree with what we now know. . .You keep claiming that the bible says the earth hangs on nothing, but the bible also claims that the earth was created before the sun and a day will come when the stars will fall into the earth. . .

you mean that is what your ancient atheist fathers told you..that the prophecy of isaiah is false? why believe the lies and deception of satan. when most of the prophesies in isaiah came to pass as events in history showed.the claim that it was written by diffrent authors does not hold water here

Most of the bible scholars are Jews and christians, so you don't even know what you are talking about. . .Have you ever seen any satan lying to deceiving any body?. . .Tha fact remains that the book was not written during the period that jewish traditions say and was written by many people over a long period of time. . .

at least u still agreed he was a christian.okay what about Copernicus(1513) who believes the earth to go round the sun...for him to be violently opposed by ignorant christian of his time goes to show he is a christian.

And when did he say the bible is the book of all books when it comes to science?. . .

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Then how come you know that the thoughts are the chemical reactions in the brain?[/quote]Read his question again and understand what he is asking. . .

davidylan: I asked a very simple question earlier and i wonder why mazaje keeps avoiding it.

We have the ability to manipulate brain chemistry in the lab... is it possible to engineer an abstract thought just by injecting a neurotransmitter?

I don't know. . .

Bidam: rather you are the guy that is not getting your facts right...you don't want to engage me? what can you offer me sef rather lies you cooked up..stop spewing trash and lets talk about Christ...your anaximander that you are singing praises about was born on 610bc ...and if my memory serves me right isaiah the prophet who said the earth was spherical existed long before then about 740-681BC....Moreso anaximander never quoted the earth as a sphere(u can prove me wrong).he was a greek mythologist who identifies apeiron as unconditioned and therefore god(u don't believe in a deity anyway, i wonder why you are so excited about him)..like i said sir isaac newton believes in the GOD of the Bible and he is a scientist(i wonder what other proof u need ). i don't need to quote him. he was a christian

You don't know what you are talking about. . .Firstly the book of Isiah does NOT say that the earth is a sphere, it ONLY said that god sits above the circle of the earth, a circle is NOT a sphere. . .And there is no god that sits any where above the earth(point to your god sitting above the circle of the earth assuming the earth is a circle lets see), lets get that fact right before we move on. . .

Secondly the book of Isiah was NOT written by one person, the Jewish tradition which is mostly FALSE claims that it was written by a man called Isiah but scholars that have looked into it has said it is FALSE. . .Scholars have studied the book for over a hundred years and have said it as a compilation of writings from three different periods by different authors and they have given VERY valid reasons as to why the book could NOT have been written by one person but so many people over a long period of time. . .

Thirdly from wikipedia. . .It says. .

Anaximander was the first astronomer to consider the Sun as a huge mass, and consequently, to realize how far from Earth it might be, and the first to present a system where the celestial bodies turned at different distances. Furthermore, according to Diogenes Laertius (II, 2), he built a celestial sphere. This invention undoubtedly made him the first to realize the obliquity of the Zodiac as the Roman philosopher Pliny the Elder reports in Natural History (II, . It is a little early to use the term ecliptic, but his knowledge and work on astronomy confirm that he must have observed the inclination of the celestial sphere in relation to the plane of the Earth to explain the seasons.

Fourthly, name one scientist that has started that he/she came to the realization and conclusion that the bible is indeed the book of all books. . .Just one scientist will do. . .NO body truly knew what Issac Newtons faith was because he according to many entries he hid his faith so well that scholars are still unravelling his personal beliefs. . .Many christians of that time considered him a heretic. . .For example he said that worshipping christ as god was idolatry, he also rejected the orthodox doctrines of the immortal soul, a personal devil and literal demons. He wasn't your conventional christian. . .

Bidam: stop writing illogical grammer telling me i don't know what am talking about..i gave u facts..must i name a NAS scientist before you believe...abi Sir. Isaac newton wey publish his findings that the earth was held in space in relation to other heavenly objects by mutual attraction(gravity)..which was close to 3,200 yrs after the Bible had stated with elegant simplicity that the earth is hanging "upon nothing" no be SCIENTISH again? I smh for u ooo.

You do not know what you are talking about. . .I didn't want to engage you because it was obvious that you do not really know what you are saying. . .Anaximander(c. 610 – c. 546 BC) a greek phlisopher was the first recorded person to suggest the earth is a sphere. If I am not mistaken lived before the book of Isaiah was written down. . . Did Newton tell you that he got his scientific knowledge from studying the bible? When did he or any other scientist say that the bibe is the book of all books?. . .Can you drop any quote from any renowned scientist that says the bible is the book of all books with regards to science?. . .The bible does not know know anything about astronomy because the same bible talks about stars falling into the earth, something that is just not possible. . .

Bidam: here is a penny for your thought bro...chew on this one..if you still want more ayam at your beck and call '
''The shape of the earth'''. The ''Encyclopedia Americana'' said: "The earliest known image that men had of the earth was that it was a flat, rigid platform at the center of the universe. ... The concept of a spherical earth was not widely accepted until the Renaissance." Some early navigators even feared that they might sail off the edge of the flat earth. But then the introduction of the compass and other advancements made possible longer ocean voyages. These "voyages of discovery," another encyclopedia explains, "showed that the world was round, not flat as most people had believed."

Yet, long before such voyages, about 2,700 years ago, the Bible said: "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." (Isaiah 40:22) The Hebrew word here translated "circle" can also mean "sphere," as various reference works note. Other Bible translations, therefore, say, "the globe of the earth" (Douay Version) and, "the round earth." Moffatt.


Some insist on interpreting this as a "flat circular earth," as a disc or pie. Since that was the concept used by mankind at the time the Bible was written, one could also accept that interpretation. Note, though, that one's interpretation today of such information does not mandate that this be the only interpretation, as noted above.
Thus, the Bible was not influenced by the unscientific views prevalent at the time regarding the earth?s support and its shape. The reason is simple: The Author of the Bible is the Author of the universe. He created the earth, so he should know what it hangs on and what its shape iis. Hence, when he inspired the Bible, he saw to it that no unscientific views were incorporated in it, however much they may have been believed by others at the time.

You are funny. . . You said that learned philosophers, astrologers, greeks, scientist have come to the realization and conclusion that the bible is indeed the book of all books. That remains a shameless lie. . .Name one astronomer that is a member of the NAS for example that says the bible is the book of all books?. . .So the bible says that the earth is a sphere?.. .Remember the same bible talks about the stars fighing along side human beings, it also talks about the stars falling into the earth and other nonsense. . You clearly do not know what you are talking about. . .

debosky: He is the ONLY Begotten Son of God.

Both those that believe he is the son of God alone and those that believe he is God AND the Son of God share the central tenet - that he is the Son of God.

The problem is that as I have stated people just self project themselves as god and tell you what ever they want to tell you. . .That is the main point of my argument. . .If it were as simple as you are trying to make it seem, people will NOT hold different views about Jesus, you have just conceded that people hold different views about him. Some believe he is god at the same time the son of god, that is him and god are the same. . .While others believe he is a different and separate entity from god. . .That division is what I am talking about, not some bogus central tenet that you are claiming. . .People ALWAYS self project themselves as god and give what ever interpretation and opinion of the bible they feel others should follow. . .That is the CENTRAL point of my argument. . .

The central and universal Christian doctrine is this:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Faith in Jesus!

I said the central and acceptable universal doctrine on HOW to achieve salvation through Jesus. . .You have to have faith in Jesus but how do you achieve that salvation?. . .Is the belief in Jesus ALONE the ONLY doctrine that that all the christians they world over believe will lead you to salvation?. . .

So what are you arguing about? I posited that the central tenets are upheld by all Christians, so what are you disputing?

What are the central tenets that are accepted by ALL christians world wide. . .

Nature of Jesus. . .God's son or god and son of god at the same time?. . .Saying that every body believe he is the son of god is false, because others believe he is god at the same time. . .That is a very BIG difference. . .

I addressed them in my initial post on this thread - go re-read it and get back to me if you have questions.

Central tenets are important because they are the underpinning of the Christian faith and no one calls him/herself a Christian and denies them.

OK. . . .

Tithing is not a central tenet of Christianity, hence you cannot expect any universality on the subject.

OK. . . .

You challenged my assertion that there are no universal tenets - you have summarily failed to back up that challenge and are now backtracking. What you call 'self-projection' is simply finding common ground - it's the first step in building a deeper relationship with God. It's a method used in pedagogy - you identify aspects an individual can identify with and then use that as a building block.

What I call self projection is simply what it is. . .Telling people and giving them your opinion on what you feel should be or is represented. . .Fist step in building a deeper relationship with god?. . .Really?. . .LOL!

A central tenet does not have to be exacting in detail - it is a principle/philosophy first and foremost. Hence, in the case of hell, the principle of it's existence is sufficient to stand as a central tenet.

I disagree with this. . .

The universal tenet is that faith in Jesus is required for salvation.

I have already addressed this before. . .

[quote author=Mr_Anony]There is nothing you can possibly do to be saved. Salvation is a gift[/quote]According to your opinion right?. . .

debosky: It's just one? Do ALL Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God? Yes or No.

What is the universally acceptable christian doctrine on the nature of Jesus?

I have given you the central tenet - that there are secondary beliefs are just that - secondary.

And what is the central tenet? That he is the son of God alone?. . .If that is your answer then it is FALSE, many believe he is god and the son of god at the SAME time. . .That is the fact of the matter. . .

The central tenet is through Jesus. Simple.

I am NOT asking you the question you are answering, I asked you SPECIFICALLY to tell me the central and universal christian doctrine on how to achieve salvation. . .

Disagreements come from other issues, not the central tenets. I agree that individuals may lay greater emphasis on these lesser issues than is necessary, but that doesn't transform them into central tenets.

I am not even talking about them being the central tenets. . .I am talking about the divisions that exist and how it is caused, and you are busy talking about central tenets as if it has to do with anything. . .What is the central and universal christian tenet on tithe for example?. . .I am talking about the disagreements that exist because people always chose to self project themselves as god but you keep talking about things I am not even discussing. . .

The central tenet is its existence. Simple.

It exist as what?. . .A house or a hotel or what?. . .

So you agree that ALL Christians require Jesus to be saved?

I am not even talking about that. . .What does a christian need to do to achvieve salvation through Jesus?. . .What is the universal christian doctrine on how salvation can be achieved through Jesus?

debosky: So you still can't answer yes or no? The fact is all Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God - that makes it UNIVERSAL. Whatever else they believe IN ADDITION to this UNIVERSAL tenet is secondary.

If you show me one Christian that doesn't believe Jesus is the Son of God, then we can start from there, else admit failure!

The answer is there is NO universally acceptable nature on who Jesus is. . .That he is the son of god is just ONE of his nature, others also believe he is god at the same time. . .Do ALL christians world wide believe that Jesus is ONLY the son of god alone?. . .

The universally acceptable doctrine is that he is the Son of God - anything else is secondary. Show me a Christian that disputes this.

Again do all christians believe that he is the son of God alone?. . .That is what I am getting at his basic nature is NOT accepted by all christians, some believe he is the son of god others believe he is god himself. . .Do you deny that fact?. . .

In all the cases you've stated, ALL believe Jesus saves - that is the universal principle. Whether there are other beliefs IN ADDITION to this UNIVERSAL principle is secondary. Show me a Christian that doesn't believe Jesus saves or keep schtum!

The central point I was making is that christians self project themselves as god and as such always try to push their own personal interpretation and opinion on others and claim it is that of god. They do that ALL of the time. . .If it is as easy as you are saying it is then you should be able to give me the central christian doctrine on how to achieve salvation. Saying that Jesus saves is NOT how to achieve salvation, I asked you SPECIFICALLY to tell me the central and universal christian doctrine on how to achieve salvation. . .

Movements have been created on the fact that some people being blonde while others being brunette - does that change the universal principle that they all have hair? There are differences in opinion no doubt, but the fundamental belief is that God created the universe and that is a UNIVERSAL Christian belief.

What exactly are you on about?. . .I initially stated that christians ALWAYS self project themselves as god and that always lead to divisions. If there is a central doctrine that is acceptable by all then where will the disagreements spring up from?. . .You are just trying to make light of the entire situation. . .

Some people may regard it as a 'major' issue, but again, that doesn't change the basic/fundamental tenet that God created the universe, regardless of different opinions on how long ago he did it.

It is a major issue that has always lead to divisions. . .

The universal doctrine on hell is that it exists. If that's not universal, then what would you call it?

Exist as what?. . .

People have divided over the most minor of issues, so again that is not the subject of discourse. The central tenet remains that you cannot be saved without Jesus.

I am not asking if you will be saved by Jesus or not. . .What can you do to be saved is what I am asking?. . .

Bidam: wrong..the bible contains timeless truths and principles that have stood the test of time and is the mostly read book through out the universe..the reason it can't be unravelled by you is because it is hidden from you..u read it like a story book...we read it with the help of the Holy Spirit...we might disagree on some issues but the central core is Jesus Christ. Learned philosopers,astrologers,greeks,epicureans,scientist have come to the realisation and conclusion that the[b] Bible is indeed the Book of all books[/b]..though made by an imperfect man..it has never lost Spiritual significance..it has lead many into a better understanding and a fuller knowledge of Jesus Christ the incarnate Word, of whom the scriptures so faithfully testify..Thank you.

The bible contains subjective "timeless truths and principles" that have stood the test of time, just like the koran and the hindu verdes. . .Your claim that learned philosophers, astrologers, greeks, scientist have come to the realization and conclusion that the bible is indeed the book of all books remains a SHAMELESS LIE. . .

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Ok, so we proceed:

Question 4: By what means does it become disconnected from the body at the point of death?

My answer: This question like it's predecessors assumes that a non-physical soul is physically connected to a physical body therefore it asks a question of mechanism to which I have to say that the question is irrelevant to the definition of the soul.

What we can know from a physical perspective is that a person is alive when the soul is present in the body but when the soul leaves, the person dies even if all physical matter which is his body remains intact. As for the mechanism of connection of the non-physical to the physical, it is not possible for me to give such an answer. This would be like asking "by what means does information disappear from a writing on piece of paper at the point of erasure?"[/quote]To be candid you have not said anything meaningful here. . .When a person dies, does the soul just fly out of the body or what?. . .If you do not know or can not answer then its best to just say so. . .

My question: How do you explain human subjective consciousness?

The following is an explanation of my question:
So far, you hold that there is no non-physical aspect of you but that chemical reactions in your brain produce non-physical thoughts. You also hold that your brain which is a physical object is capable of consciousness of which consciousness to you is reduced to stimuli which the brain processes by affecting particular chain reactions. You also hold that not only does the brain process these information, it evaluates them and and makes choices based on this information. Essentially as far as you are concerned, man does not have a physical brain per say, man is a brain i.e. the whole essence of man is his physical brain and there is nothing non-physical to man's essence.

Yes, If there is more to the brain then why is it that changes to the brain can alter a person's behaviour completely?. . . As I aforementioned, it used to be common practice to lobotomise (surgically remove the frontal lobes of the brain) dangerously violent people as this brought about a dramatic change in their personality - they became much more subdued and docile. Their personality and behaviour changes completely. People that suffer brain damage also experience a complete change in their behaviours, they become new beings. . .Does the damaged material brain damage the immaterial soul?

If this is true, how do you explain subjective opinion of reality? because if man is a brain and the brain is essentially chemical reactions responding to external stimuli, then it follows that the nature of man's consciousness ought to be objective because the same stimuli must produce the same reactions and therefore no two men would be able to disagree with each other as long as they are interacting with the same information/stimulus.
Secondly, man cannot possibly have abstract ideas and concepts like morality, legality, democracy or capitalism or socialism e.t.c. because there is no direct link between the observation of physical objects and the formation of such abstract ideas.
Thirdly, pleasure and pain (especially as concerning abstract ideas) would not exist or at least the stimuli will give pleasure objectively and there will be no such thing as preferences.

The part I have highlighted in bold is just not true. You are just begging the question. The thought process in the brain are different for different humans. They are not all the same. We do not know every thing about the brain but to reduce it as an organ that is essentially a chemical reaction that is responding to external stimuli alone is simply begging the question. . . . I don't know the answer to all the questions you have asked, but one fact that has been empirically shown and demonstrated is that the brain controls and coordinates actions and reactions, it allows us to think and feel, and enables us to have memories and feelings – all the things that make us human. but, our brains are all wired differently, how our brain process information also differs. . .How hormones also affect our brains differently and make us behave differently as well. . .But it has been empirically shown that the four lobes of the brain determines who we are and the reasons behind our perceptions. . .Any damage to any of the lobes has direct effect on our behaviour and personality for example a damage to the frontal lobe leads to

Increased or decreased problem solving ability and creativity
Alteration in talking habits
Reduced sexual interest or peculiar sexual habits
Impaired risk-taking ability
Reduced or no sense of taste and/or smell
Impaired spontaneity and mental flexibility
Increased susceptibility to distractions

But even that varies from individual to individual. . .

debosky: Do those that believe he is God dispute that he is the Son of God?

Those that believe Jesus is god also believe he is the son of god, but that is NOT the only belief christians hold, many others believe he is God at the same time god's son. Those that believe he is god believe he is god's son at the same time, while those that do not believe he exist as a separate and different entity as god. if you don't understand the difference then I can't help you. That is a MAJOR difference, to claim it is not is to tell lies, simple. . .

All this hot air and you can't answer a simple question - ALL Christians believe Jesus is the only begotten Son of God - YES OR NO?

Leave the other side issues and let's have a logical, progressive discussion or are atheists only comfortable in conflating issues and obfuscating?

One second you talk about 'basic nature', the next you jump to 'exact nature' are you confused? The basic nature of Jesus is that he is the only begotten Son of God and that is what matters.

What is the universally acceptable christian doctrine on the nature of Jesus?. . .Is he god's son and god at the same time or is he a different and a separate entity from god? What is the universally acceptable christian doctrine on that?. . .

They all agree that Jesus saves - YES OR NO? The substance is that Jesus saves those that believe in him - the role of works is secondary and is a minor detail. Only those that first believe that Jesus saves can even begin to have a discussion about the role of works.

NOT true, they do NOT all agree that Jesus saves all those that believe in him, to claim they do is to tell lies, simple. . .Some believe that Jesus save those that believe in him and do good works, while other believe that Jesus save those who believe in him regardless of the work they do. . .To some believing that Jesus saves alone without good works will lead you to hell, while others only believe that beliving in him and his saving abilities without works is enough. . .This has lead to many divisions and break aways in many churches. To claim that there is a universal tenet is to tell lies. . .Simple. . .

Again, this is a false dichotomy - there were Christians before the 66/66+ books of the bible were compiled - Christianity did not begin when the bible was compiled. Since those Christians who lived before the time of the bible's compilation were legitimately Christians, then the logical conclusion is that the number of books is largely irrelevant and is a minor side issue when we talk a[b]bout the central tenets of Christian faith[/b]

What is the central universally acceptable tenet of the chriatian faith?. . .NO such thing exist. . .

That is the individual prerogative - the fact remains that the central tenet is that God created the universe, not the mechanism or timing of this creation. That human beings divide and separate on these issues does not alter the central/primary tenet which is held by all Christians as true.

That is your own opinion, to others it is central to their christian faith and they have tied it to their salvation, I have told you that people here on nairaland like oladegbuu and some others who I have seen have clearly stated that believing that the earth is less than 10,000 years old is tied to your salvation. . .You can not believe in the bible and Jesus and believe that the earth is millions of years old. . .Many YEC hold that view, visit their websites and see for yourself. . .How the earth was created and when it was created is a MAJOR issue to many christians, to say it is not is to lie. . .Movements have been formed based on such disagreements, we now have the young earth creationist, old earth creationist and the theistic evolutionist all based on this MAJOR and IMPORTANT disagreements. . . .Saying it is not a MAJOR issue is pure lies. . .

The central tenet is the existence of hell as a place of punishment/separation from God. As I said before, the duration or mechanism of hell isn't the central tenet.

You just keep dancing all over yourself. . .What is the central and universally acceptable christian doctorine on hell?. . .Punishment and separation from god ARE NOT the same, while some believe that hell is a place of eternal punishment in fire others believe it is simply a state of eternal separation form god. The two are NOT the same, to say other wise is to tell lies. . .Simple. . .

The central tenet is that Jesus saves, No one - whether they believe works 'matter' or not - disputes that Jesus is the necessary element to be saved.

Other believe that works is what matters while others believe otherwise, I repeat again it is is NOT a MAJOR issue as you are trying to have us believe, it will NOT lead to break away and major divisions as we see all around us. . .I repeat again , what does a christian need to do to gain salvation, does he need to believe that he is saved under Jesus alone, or does he need to hold that believe and do good works as well? What is the central christian tenet with regards to salvation can be achieved?

More on self projection as god. . .


The bible contains a lot of paradoxical statements, conflicting accounts that cannot be unraveled and even a formal contradiction or two. It also has commands that the Christian does not wish to obey and descriptions of God that the Christian does not want to worship.

What each Christian is telling you, though, in her or his own way, is that he or she is god. Still, Christians can’t reject the Bible entirely. That would be throwing out the baby Jesus with the holy water. The Bible is the only reason to believe certain things they do hold dear. So, in one way or another, they reject what they don’t like.

Some Christians will dismiss more of the Bible, others less. Some in pious sounding ways, and others more flagrantly. The better educated, more articulate Christians might perform mental genuflections to explain biblical contradictions and write grand systematic theologies to describe their gods, while the uneducated ones might tell you only what they feel in their hearts and the religious yuppies will tell you what meaning they take from the Bible. What each Christian is telling you, though, in her or his own way, is that he or she is god.

The result is a rank and unique pride that claims a divine stamp of approval upon the Christian’s own life, while rejecting both all of the Bible that doesn’t appeal to her or his liking and the gods constructed by other Christians, reflecting other parts of the bible.

It’s an arrogant syncretism of life and religion that we call Self-Projection as God (SPAG).

For a practical demonstration, just pick a pair of contrary or contradictory Bible verses that are on either side of a sensitive issue and ask a Christian what she or he thinks about them. The better you know the Bible and the Christian, the easier it will be to pick the appropriately contrary verses, but the result will always be the same: The Christian will start rationalizing and explaining the contradiction in a way that accommodates them to his or her own life.

Understand that we’re not merely intending to demonstrate simply that the Bible is an inconsistent hodgepodge of ancient mythology and antiquated ethics rife with error. That’s obvious and it’s not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that because the Bible is such mishmash, SPAG is the necessary and universal form of Christianity in practice, an absolute identity: All Christianity is Self-Projection as God.

Link

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Let me show you something from the bible. A couple of excerpts from Romans 14(MSG):

Welcome with open arms fellow believers who don't see things the way you do. And don't jump all over them every time they do or say something you don't agree with—even when it seems that they are strong on opinions but weak in the faith department. Remember, they have their own history to deal with. Treat them gently.....

....Eventually, we're all going to end up kneeling side by side in the place of judgment, facing God. Your critical and condescending ways aren't going to improve your position there one bit. Read it for yourself in Scripture....[/quote]This is your own personal interpretation of the verse, as most of what you have written here does NOT appear in the verse you quoted, if you want to quote what the bible says just quote it, i do not need your personal opinion or interpretation of what the bible says. . . .Does this not contradict your statement that if you follow Jesus you can't be wrong?. . .You stared by asking useless questions. . .I made very simple statements and you started with asking useless question, now that you have no where to go you are here quoting biblical passages for me. . .The reality is that there is NO universally acceptable christian doctrine, and people ONLY self project themselves as god all the time. . .

debosky: But they do - ALL Christians agree Jesus is the begotten Son of God - that is Jesus' basic nature as revealed in the bible.

NOT ALL. . .Many believe that Jesus is god himself and that is a very BIG difference. . .Many believe that Jesus is god and the holy spirit at the same time. . .The exact nature of Jesus is NOT agreed upon by all christians. . .If you say other wise then you are simply LYING. . .While others believe God is one in 3 forms, others believe he is not one in 3 forms but that Jesus is a very separate entity from god and a very distinct entity from the holy spirit. . .The trinity is not agreed upon by all christians and the nature of Jesus as god or the son of god is also in dispute. . .If all agree then why do some christians label other christians as heretics for holding that trinity is biblical?. . .

This is a lesser matter - the central tenet is that Jesus is God's son - even in your assertion you do not dispute that.

Many believe he is also god at the same time and that means a lot to them and has lead to many disagreements. . .

Jesus is the way, the truth and the life - no one comes to the Father except through him. Everyone agrees on this. The disputes on 'work' are not the substance - the substance remains that Jesus saves - the exact mechanism is not the issue here - each individual will have to walk his walk with God.

They are the substance, unless you want to lie to yourself. . .Many believe that Jesus can not save you if you do not do good works while others believe that once you accept jesus you are saved already regardless of your works. . .If that is not a major difference then I agree I don't know what a difference is. . .

Again, this is not substance but a false dichotomy - the basic, fundamental tenets of the Christian faith are shared by both the Catholic 'bible' and the so called pentecostal 'bible' - both 'bibles' (in essence a compilation of books) agree on the fundamental tenets - God created the universe, and Jesus is His Son. The bible is not in dispute - the bible does not contain a reference that says 'there shalt only be x number of books'.

It is NOT a false dichotomy, many catholics believe that protestants are using the imcomplete bible and as such do not have access to the complete word of god, while many protestants believe catholics accept heretical books as the word of god. . .It is a MAJOR difference, unless you want to lie to yourself. . .

God created the universe - that is the central tenet. The exact time it was created is not a central tenet, neither is whether there was a pre-adamic world or not.

How he created and when he created is a problem to many. . .The YEC says the universe was created less than ten thousand years ago and some how ties his salvation to it, people like Oladegbuu have stated many times that the belief in a young universe is tied to a person's salvation, others believe that the universe is millions of years old, some even believe that god created man and animals through evolution(vatican and the catholic leadership). . .Many believe in a pre adamite world etc. . .All these are MAJOR issues, to say that it is not a major issue is your own personal opinion, these beliefs have lead to the break away and formation of new churches and division in many existing churches. . .

Maybe you don't understand what a central tenet is?

Minor details in dispute do not change the central tenets.

There is NO universally acceptable christian doctrine. . .What is the central tenet on hell?. . .Is it a place of eternal punishment or not?. . .

What is the central christian tenet with regards to salvation?. ..Does work matter or not?. . .